Comments about ‘Arizona Gov. Brewer criticizes so-called anti-gay bill, vetoes it’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 27 2014 7:19 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "killpack" the sharia law came to the US the day that the courts decided that Secular Humanism/Athiesim is the state religion. If you don't believe me, try an erect a cross or a 10 commandments monument on public property. Better yet, try and have a prayer listed as a prayer at a public meeting.

To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to deny services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a gay only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only cater to hetersexuals, that is great too. By suing those businesses to serve them, they are pushing people into slavery. Didn't we have a big war to end slavery?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

I have a hard time believing that Jan Brewer wasn't intimately involved in a bill that all or practically all of the GOP legislators voted for. I think she saw it as possibly having repercussions but feigned lack of interest / lack of knowledge in its existence until she saw the handwriting on the wall (in the form of criticism from business) and then claimed she had only now read it and decided to put the kibbash on it. Read her statement as to why she did veto it--nothing about the wrongness of legitimizing discrimination, but rather some vague statement about how the legislation was unnecessary.

Well.ok
Lehi, UT

I wonder how many supporters of the bill "protecting religious freedoms" would support a similar bill allowing businesses to deny services to LDS?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Patriot, re-read your letter and substitute “Mormon wedding” or “interracial wedding” and see if your logic holds. Then imagine a Catholic wedding hall owner refusing to rent the space to a Christian couple where one of them had been divorced--and claiming a sincerely held belief in the sanctity of marriage as an excuse.

Laws regarding businesses take the approach that you cannot offer a service (host a reception, make a cake, take pictures) for some people but not for others. I doubt that you would be happy to have some business refuse to serve you and then claim “religious freedom” as an excuse.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Well.ok" I would support a bill that allowed businesses to deny services to anybody they wanted to. Think of it this way, how long would a business last in Utah that denied services to LDS people? Better yet, how much would it cost a business to pay somebody to stand at their door and ask if that person is LDS? That business wouldn't last long, so why not let them try to make a name for themselves.

Lets look at it logically. Would you hire a lawn service that discriminated against any racial group? Would you hire a lawn service that didn't care if you were black, white, red, yellow, purple, or blue?

Let the market decide.

This isn't a return to the Jim Crow era, because that was GOVERNMENT enforced segregation. This is letting people shoot themselves in the foot and suffer the consequences.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@ Mountanman

"I decide what is moral for myself but you and others don't want me to have that freedom!"

Not true at all. You have always had the right to decide what is or is not moral for yourself as long as it is within the confines of the law. What has you in a snit is we are no longer going to stand still and allow you to force your "morality" on us. Equal rights under the law means equal rights for all, even those you disagree with.

"You and others insist your morality be forced upon me and others "

First, you have been forcing your "morality" om us for a couple of hundred years; we're tired of it. Second, if you are going to seek profit in Caesar's market place you must obey Caesar's rules. You don't have to open a business but if you want to there are rules and laws in place that must be followed.

Utefan4Lyf
West Jordan, UT

@RedShirt: You're right. This isn't government forced segregation, it is government approved segregation. They are telling business owners they can discriminate with no reprecussions. It's still an unacceptable act.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@lost in DC

"nuns should not HAVE to sign a form."

Why not? Are they above the law?

"Research Edmonds-Tacker Acts"

Marriage is a function of the state with the state allowing and authorizing churches to act on the state's behalf in performing weddings. Edmonds-Tacker defined what was a legal marriage not who could or could not perform the wedding. No church will have to perform a wedding ceremony for anyone whose beliefs goes against the teachings of that church.

"Business owners are PEOPLE."

Businesses, however, are not. They are licensed by the state with the expectation that they will conduct their business in accordance with the laws and regulations of the state. But, I'll make a compromise. I'll support legislation that allows businesses to discriminate on religious beliefs of the owners as long as the same law requires that business owner to prominently display a disclaimer stating they "reserve the right to refuse service and/or employment based on their religious beliefs." This will allow reasonable people to skip by those shops and take their business elsewhere. Deal?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

It is sad that people give into the pressure of that statists who want the state to control more of our lives. Individuals should have the right to live their religion, and not be penalized for doing so.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Utefan4Lyf" what is more unacceptable, allowing people to make choices, for good or bad or allowing government to force you to serve others?

You are wrong. Their will be reprecussions. Either their business will suffer because people don't want to be associated with people that discriminate or else their business will prosper because people with similar ideals will buy from them. But that is just a side issue.

The fact is, you have to decide what you can live with. Somebody making bad choices, or government forcing you to serve others.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

RedShirt: "Think of it this way, how long would a business last in Utah that denied services to LDS people?"

That's a legitimate, but weak, example. The real issue is a minority group facing discrimination by the majority. A more relevant example would be a business in, say, Texas or Mississippi or Florida, with a predominantly fundamentalist evangelical Christian population that denied services to LDS people (on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs that Mormons were non-Christian). The free market doesn't function nearly as efficiently in weeding out the bad actors in this case because there are likely to be multiple discriminating businesses. The aggrieved minority LDS person might not have any alternative nondiscriminating businesses to patronize (especially in a small town). The market calculus changes when the power relationship is reversed.

Your point about Jim Crow being government, not private, discrimination, is well taken, but remember that it was a symptom of an ingrained cultural attitude. De facto racial segregation (i.e. discrimination) survived long after de jure segregation was abolished.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

The bill was not anti-gay, but simply pro-religion. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true when it would violate the personal religious of the owner to provide service.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Lagomorph" ok, lets visualise a grocery store wanting to discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do that? Do they keep a list of known LDS members at their register, do they pay somebody to stand at the door and tell LDS people to go away? No matter what, their is no way they can discriminate against LDS people without it costing them money. Only a really bad businessman would discriminate in a way that cut into their bottom line. If they are that determined to discriminate they will probably destroy their business soon. Plus, think of the community. Do you think that southerners would shop at a store they knew was intentionally discriminating against their neighbors?

The point is, the free market would play out, and the really bad businesses will eventually go away.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

RedShirt said: To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to deny services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a gay only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only cater to hetersexuals, that is great too.

Talk about a bad Idea, sure most civilized places in the USA would gladly allow a racist business to fail but their are places like Hayden Lake Idaho, home to the Arian brotherhood where they might thrive. Now your a person who isn't white and christian and your low on gas, well they don't serve your type round theses parts, so no gas, you ask, is there someplace we can stay nope no room at the inn for your type, no food, no service and come dark it could get worse.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Happy Valley Heretic" we already have businesses and regions that discriminate, and nobody cares. You realize that there are "gay bars" where non-gays are not accepted and are intimidated. There are neighborhoods in the big cities where if you are not a member of that neighborhoods ethnic group you will be beat up or killed. Colleges are allowed to discriminate based on race. So are scholarships. Have you ever heard of a white kid receiving a scholarship from the Negro College Fund? The government enacted all sorts of laws requiring businesses hire people based on ethnicity. Even within the government purchasing system they discriminate based on skin color, veteran status, and disabled status.

The fact is there are many racist businesses and government entities. Why not let the rest of the population have the same freedom to discriminate based on whatever they want?

If the government can discriminate, why can't I?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

RedShirt: "To 'Lagomorph' ok, lets visualise a grocery store wanting to discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do that?"

The same way that people discriminate against homosexuals, through observation and reasoned inferences and playing on stereotypes. Ever hear of "gaydar"? It's not hard for a grocer to pick LDS people out of a crowd of customers. The van in the lot with lots of kids, a "Families are forever" bumper sticker, BYU sweatshirts, buy tons of groceries but never coffee or beer, clean-cut and wholesome. Also, in a small town, say, everyone knows everyone else's business. There are bound to be false positives and false negatives, but the percentages are good.

RedShirt: "The point is, the free market would play out, and the really bad businesses will eventually go away."

Mostly agreed, but you completely missed my point about minority/majority power relationships. The market only works if there are options. There may not be alternative businesses available for an aggrieved minority customer to patronize if 1) there is only one grocer in town or 2) ALL the grocers in town are part of the discriminating majority group. Either could be the case in some places.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Lagomorph" lets imagine that the situation you describe actually occurs. Now, you have a business opportunity. Any enterprising person can see that there is a group that is not being served. If you are a smart businessman, you start a business that delivers groceries or start your own competing grocery store and take business away from the discriminating businesses.

Only in a pessimistic "mankind is all evil" world would any lasting problem exist if people were allowed to pick and choose customers.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

@RedShirt: Again, mostly agreed. I agree that an entrepreneur can capitalize on the market niche of an underserved customer base in your example. However, you continue to discount the power relationships I cited that can create market failure and perpetuate discriminatory conditions. It's the difference between theoretical ideals (rosy) and real world practicalities (not always so rosy). The free market may prevail in the long run, but locally and in the short term may not produce the ideal outcome without some external political nudging.

I'm reminded of another thread in months past where a commenter noted that many southern states had African-American majority populations and simply could have voted away Jim Crow laws, ignoring the practical reality that whites held all of the political and economic power. Blacks couldn't even register to vote, let alone vote or hold office. Democracy, the "free market" of political power, fails when the customers (voters) have no options.

Same applies here. In a town of 2000, say, is there sufficient customer base to support a second grocery? What if there is a single Mormon family and all the other 1993 people in town hate Mormons? Who will open the nondiscriminating competitor store?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Lagomorph" the scenario that you paint only exists is a pessimistic world. When the free market has been able to work, outside of political interference, things like the Jim Crow laws never exist. For example, in the early colonial days of the US, the free market was alive and very strong. Ironically, people did not discriminate during that time. It wasn't until people thought that the government knew best, and deferred to government for decisions that they should make that problems arose.

Yes the blacks could have voted away the Jim Crow laws, but the Southern Democrats enacted laws that prevented most blacks from voting, thus securing their plower. The free market was not allowed to work there because the Democrats did not want to lose their power.

You are now getting to the point of insanity. The fact remains that the US is filled with good people, and the small towns even more so. I would not worry about the LDS family in a small town because that situation would never exist.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments